Even at WWDC, developers can't get straight answers about App Store rejections

hi

i am also a iphone developer with my own sad story to share,
i hope u dont mind:

i already created some truly innovative apps like the first midi controllers and first downloader app for iphone, itouchmidi and idownload,
i also created ikaraoke,
wich would be the first karaoke app on the app store but it has been rejected bcs some app review member considered it to be too simillar to ipod app and that it would confuse users
more details at: http://www.ikaraokeapp.com/node/18

i have also just posted about it and included some links to reports like this one on http://www.facebook.com/CNNQuest
feel free to drop in and help us try to reach even more media atention to the shameful app store review state of the nation

We are 3.0 compatible, I'd be a bad developer if I didn't check that. We're also bug and memory leak free, just for good measure. It's a pretty simple app.

To address a few points that have been made in the comments. We did have bios with each picture, but took them out as we thought that was the reason for rejection. We may put them back in - not sure just yet.

The work is an artist's portfolio, so does not break any laws, rights or amendments as far as we are aware. Same applied with the book.

I don't like Apple's app store approval policy, but here's the thing: Apple has the right to not disclose the approval process, because it might be a patented method that might be used on other competitors.

Sure, it may sound stupid, but I am talking from the financial point of view.

Also, the app shown above, it is potentially offensive.

But here's a thing: Re-submit the app. Each app store reviewer judges the app on their own opinion. Every re-submit, different person reviews the app, so different views are taken in.

Also, take note, that if the app has even one flaw in 3.0, it will be rejected, no questions asked. Interface bug, slowness, etc, all those are the requirement for app to be rejected from app store.

[grammar Nazi] You have an extra apostrophe on "developers" in the last paragraph! [/grammar Nazi]

I completely agree with this article. If they are going to filter submitted applications to this extent, they should also filter bad applications already in the app store.

Are they 3.0 compatible? I know this might seem a bit obvious, but apple is only accepting those which are 3.0 compatible, so they could check whether they are, just an idea though :)

I also have to concur with Dan and Geof... while WWDC is aimed at developers (developers! Developers!), it isn't the developers' equivalent of an appointment at the Genius Bar.

The simple fact is that Apple owns and controls the App Store, and they get to decide what goes in there. I'll certainly concede that "because we said so" is a ridiculous reason for a rejection, but I'll wager that this was a general response from someone who is unfamiliar with the app or the rejection itself. I imagine that the sentiment was more of "I do not know why your app was rejected, but we rejected it, so that's that." There absolutely should be more transparency in the process, and at the very least, the App help line should provide them with the actual reason for the rejection.

Again, however, this *is* Apple's store, and if "we simply don't like and/or don't see the utility in your app" is the reason for the rejection, that's still valid. Honestly, people keep talking about the Pre and the Android Store as being things that should push Apple to stop rejecting so many apps, but I suspect that it's quite the other way around. As it is, the App Store has a lot of good apps, but those apps are a little island floating in a much larger sea of crappy apps that are varying combinations of badly written, useless, and derivative. At this point, Apple should be tightening the reins and being choosier. More wheat, less chaff. A new iPhone user should be able to hit the App Store and find themselves standing neck-deep in apps that they just have to have, rather than finding maybe one or two apps per page that aren't flashlights, fart sound generators, or standalone single books that they've never heard of.

Good. Totally supportive of the idea to do a weekly column and keep the heat on Apple rather than just sporadic outbursts around a specific app. They need to change their training and policies, or at the least publish regulations.

And WWDC *absolutely* should have been an appropriate place for developers to get more information about the process--the App Store approval process is effectively a second SDK iPhone developers have to conform to, only right now it's a mysterious, unpublished, SDK.

People have been battling Google for closing and/or rejecting accounts without valid disclosure, I'm just waiting for this to push Apple as well http://www.huffingtonpost.com/aaron-greenspan/why-google-bothered-to-ap_b_213176.html

I find this odd though, I wouldn't think this is the culture that Steve Jobs permits. Are they outsourcing their approvals in some way?

They will get more than $6000 worth of publicity out of this.

Maybe they didn't like the "likeness" (or not) of Steve?

Sorry, Christina, the First Amendment only provides limited protection to commercial speech. If you want to publish a book or magazine article criticizing or praising a celebrity or telling his or her life story, then that's protected under the First Amendment, but if you just want to use the celebrity's name or image to sell a product, then you need permission. In this case, the author is not criticizing or praising the celebrities or indeed engaging in any form of expression about the celebrities at all, that I can see. Instead he's just included the celebrity images and names in his software because those images and names will help the program sell.

As a mental exercise, imagine that the author just used the names and images of unknown people in his software. Would anyone be interested in buying it? Of course not! The names and images of the celebrities provide the principal reason for making the purchase, and thus constitute most of the value of the software. This directly infringes the right of publicity and does not implicate the First Amendment at all, since there's no expression of any ideas about the celebrities themselves at all.

As for the resolution of the images, I think that if they truly weren't recognizable, then the program wouldn't have any point, would it? They're sufficiently recognizable (and indeed they are labelled with the celebrities' names, which also independently implicate the right of publicity) and so the low resolution doesn't change the analysis above.

You mention that the use wouldn't be damaging, but you don't have to prove damages. For example, California Civil Code Section 3344 permits a person to recover $750 for each violation of the person's right of publicity, without proving any actual damage at all, in the case of use of the person's "name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness, in any manner, on or in products, merchandise, or goods, or for purposes of advertising or selling, or soliciting purchases of, products, merchandise, goods or services, without such person's prior consent."